Wisconsin notes

[mgk920]

Pulled this out of the Indiana US-27 topic, but it looks as though if you read these documents, I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay was originally supposed to be an extension of I-57.

AASHTO's denial is available at Wikisource (transcription) or Wikimedia Commons (scanned document).

I've known that since the 1970s.  It was to follow WI 57 north of Milwaukee, too, and the public pathway that now runs along WI 57 between Kiel and New Holstein was built on the ROW that was acquired for the southbound side of that never-built highway.

Mike

[fuller523]

Pulled this out of the Indiana US-27 topic, but it looks as though if you read these documents, I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay was originally supposed to be an extension of I-57.

AASHTO's denial is available at Wikisource (transcription) or Wikimedia Commons (scanned document).

I've known that since the 1970s.  It was to follow WI 57 north of Milwaukee, too, and the public pathway that now runs along WI 57 between Kiel and New Holstein was built on the ROW that was acquired for the southbound side of that never-built highway.

Mike

Was the 4-lane section between the WI-32/57 merge and Kiel built for I-57 as well?

[SEWIGuy]

Pulled this out of the Indiana US-27 topic, but it looks as though if you read these documents, I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay was originally supposed to be an extension of I-57.

AASHTO's denial is available at Wikisource (transcription) or Wikimedia Commons (scanned document).

I've known that since the 1970s.  It was to follow WI 57 north of Milwaukee, too, and the public pathway that now runs along WI 57 between Kiel and New Holstein was built on the ROW that was acquired for the southbound side of that never-built highway.

Mike

The route of what is now I-43 was determined long before 1974 though right?

[mgk920]

Pulled this out of the Indiana US-27 topic, but it looks as though if you read these documents, I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay was originally supposed to be an extension of I-57.

AASHTO's denial is available at Wikisource (transcription) or Wikimedia Commons (scanned document).

I've known that since the 1970s.  It was to follow WI 57 north of Milwaukee, too, and the public pathway that now runs along WI 57 between Kiel and New Holstein was built on the ROW that was acquired for the southbound side of that never-built highway.

Mike

The route of what is now I-43 was determined long before 1974 though right?

I've known that since the 1970s.  It was to follow WI 57 north of Milwaukee, too, and the public pathway that now runs along WI 57 between Kiel and New Holstein was built on the ROW that was acquired for the southbound side of that never-built highway.

Mike

Was the 4-lane section between the WI-32/57 merge and Kiel built for I-57 as well?
[/quote]

I am not totally sure on either, except that the straight north-south four lane part was very likely intended to be upgraded to be I-57.  As best that I can tell, that all changed in the early to mid 1970s time frame.  The US 141 corridor was the 'Plan 'B'' for that.  There are many analogies between 'Why wasn't the US 41 corridor originally chosen to be upgraded that way?' and the 'US/CA 99 v. the as-built I-5 corridors in California's Central Valley?' questions.

Mike

[dvferyance]

Heard an interesting "origin story" regarding WI-172.

The highway was given that number because it is the sum of the four state highways running through Green Bay (29, 32, 54 and 57), and was originally planned to serve as a bypass for each of those highways.  But Green Bay objected to that plan because they wanted to ensure state maintenance of these highways in the city.

I had never heard that, and can't find anything to support it, but 172 being the sum of those highways can't be a coincidence right?

Wis 172 was a state highway in Eau Claire. WISDOT likes to "recycle"  numbers. A couplr of examples:
Old Wis 15:Between Milwaukee and Beloit
New Wis 15: Appleton to New London
Old Wis 91: Shortcut route in Tomahawk
New Wis 91: Berlin to Oshkosh

Wis 172 would be another number added to the list.

They still haven't recycled 62,84 or 99 and all 3 have been unused for over 2 decades now. I would use 62 for 39 to avoid conflict for I-39. You could use 84 for the last leg of 80 to match the one in Illinois. That only leaves 99 left. Perhaps the E-W portion of 67 could get a separate number that would make sense.

[SEWIGuy]

No one confuses I-39 with WI-39.

[SSOWorld]

Heard an interesting "origin story" regarding WI-172.

The highway was given that number because it is the sum of the four state highways running through Green Bay (29, 32, 54 and 57), and was originally planned to serve as a bypass for each of those highways.  But Green Bay objected to that plan because they wanted to ensure state maintenance of these highways in the city.

I had never heard that, and can't find anything to support it, but 172 being the sum of those highways can't be a coincidence right?

Wis 172 was a state highway in Eau Claire. WISDOT likes to "recycle"  numbers. A couplr of examples:
Old Wis 15:Between Milwaukee and Beloit
New Wis 15: Appleton to New London
Old Wis 91: Shortcut route in Tomahawk
New Wis 91: Berlin to Oshkosh

Wis 172 would be another number added to the list.

They still haven't recycled 62,84 or 99 and all 3 have been unused for over 2 decades now. I would use 62 for 39 to avoid conflict for I-39. You could use 84 for the last leg of 80 to match the one in Illinois. That only leaves 99 left. Perhaps the E-W portion of 67 could get a separate number that would make sense.

Why change a number just to match an adjoining state's number?

'sides, IDOT doesn't cooperate with anyone so why should WisDOT "help" them?

[Big John]

BTW, IL 84 was IL 80 before I-80 was built.

[paulthemapguy]

They still haven't recycled 62,84 or 99 and all 3 have been unused for over 2 decades now. I would use 62 for 39 to avoid conflict for I-39. You could use 84 for the last leg of 80 to match the one in Illinois. That only leaves 99 left. Perhaps the E-W portion of 67 could get a separate number that would make sense.

62 is an east-west freeway along the south side of Minneapolis.  That's right.  Minnesota stole the number 62 from Wisconsin so they could use it twice 

In any event, 74 is another unused number under 100, but this is treading into Fictional Highways territory anyways.

No one confuses I-39 with WI-39.

That looks like a really difficult statement to prove.  Nobody ever?  A new number for WI-39 isn't a dire need, but it would be nice imo.

[SEWIGuy]

They still haven't recycled 62,84 or 99 and all 3 have been unused for over 2 decades now. I would use 62 for 39 to avoid conflict for I-39. You could use 84 for the last leg of 80 to match the one in Illinois. That only leaves 99 left. Perhaps the E-W portion of 67 could get a separate number that would make sense.

62 is an east-west freeway along the south side of Minneapolis.  That's right.  Minnesota stole the number 62 from Wisconsin so they could use it twice 

In any event, 74 is another unused number under 100, but this is treading into Fictional Highways territory anyways.

No one confuses I-39 with WI-39.

That looks like a really difficult statement to prove.  Nobody ever?  A new number for WI-39 isn't a dire need, but it would be nice imo.

It would be completely unnecessary.

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't see them using the numbers 62, 74, 84, or 99 again. I believe there is a fixed amount of state highway mileage allowed within the state. As for renumbering STH-39, that would have happened before the 1990's. When the US Highway system debuted in 1926 (and later), state highways with the same number had to be renumbered. Same as when the Interstates debuted in 1956 (and Interstate 43 in 1974). For more information, consult Chris Bessert's Wisconsin Highways webpage: http://wisconsinhighways.org/

[TheHighwayMan3561]

It would be completely unnecessary.

I agree with you. Anyone who confuses I-39 and WIS 39, or for that matter the MN 62s, is too dumb to drive.

[gr8daynegb]

It would be completely unnecessary.

I agree with you. Anyone who confuses I-39 and WIS 39, or for that matter the MN 62s, is too dumb to drive.

Then put in application to put up roads signs.....seems to be a career in putting in US signs for state highways or vice versa lol 

[dvferyance]

Heard an interesting "origin story" regarding WI-172.

The highway was given that number because it is the sum of the four state highways running through Green Bay (29, 32, 54 and 57), and was originally planned to serve as a bypass for each of those highways.  But Green Bay objected to that plan because they wanted to ensure state maintenance of these highways in the city.

I had never heard that, and can't find anything to support it, but 172 being the sum of those highways can't be a coincidence right?

Wis 172 was a state highway in Eau Claire. WISDOT likes to "recycle"  numbers. A couplr of examples:
Old Wis 15:Between Milwaukee and Beloit
New Wis 15: Appleton to New London
Old Wis 91: Shortcut route in Tomahawk
New Wis 91: Berlin to Oshkosh

Wis 172 would be another number added to the list.

They still haven't recycled 62,84 or 99 and all 3 have been unused for over 2 decades now. I would use 62 for 39 to avoid conflict for I-39. You could use 84 for the last leg of 80 to match the one in Illinois. That only leaves 99 left. Perhaps the E-W portion of 67 could get a separate number that would make sense.

Why change a number just to match an adjoining state's number?

'sides, IDOT doesn't cooperate with anyone so why should WisDOT "help" them?

Just since the number is available. I only suggested using it for the portion of 80 south of 11 which is less than 2 miles long anyways. I would like to see other states do this too if one number is available in one state. For example Virginia could renumber VA-75 to VA-44 to match the 44 in Tennessee since that number is available in Virginia

[GeekJedi]

It appears that STH-24 got a promotion! There's another one of these goofs on the mainline. 

[The Ghostbuster]

That is goofy! I dislike the fact that STH-24 ends at the Milwaukee/Waukesha County line. I know it was truncated there in the late 1980's when 24 between that point and STH-20 in East Troy became CTH-L, but I think 24's western end should have been at another highway, such as the nearby US 45/STH-100 junction.

[DaBigE]

It appears that STH-24 got a promotion! There's another one of these goofs on the mainline. 

Nice work capturing the incorrect and correct shields in the same shot. 

[FightingIrish]

Funny. I caught that last week and posted it on Facebook.

[SSOWorld]

And the rash of sign errors across WI continues....

[dvferyance]

That is goofy! I dislike the fact that STH-24 ends at the Milwaukee/Waukesha County line. I know it was truncated there in the late 1980's when 24 between that point and STH-20 in East Troy became CTH-L, but I think 24's western end should have been at another highway, such as the nearby US 45/STH-100 junction.

I would end it at WI-164 in Big Bend it's still a major route through Muskego west of Big Bend I would agree it's a minor route. The only other place I know of where a state highway ends at a county line is VA-108 ends at the Henry/Franklin County line and like WI-24 it too was truncated for whatever reason. None the less it is a very unusual ending probably the one that bothers me the most.

[midwesternroadguy]

Speaking of highway promotions, what County Trunk Highways in Wisconsin might be worthy of a promotion to a STH, or a swap with an existing STH?  I would consider County Trunk M in Dane County from Oregon to Verona through Westport.  It certainly has the volume and would be analogous to STH 100 around Milwaukee.  I’ve seen discussions here of swapping County Trunk A in Dodge County with STH 26 south of Waupun.  Others:

County Trunk M in Vilas County south of Boulder Jct. 
County Trunk PB and STH 69 in Dane County 
County Trunk GG and STH 77 in Ashland County
County Trunk N and STH 59 in Rock County (mostly)—granted, a STH connecting Milton and Edgerton makes sense. 

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I've stated CTH-F in St. Croix County between Hudson and Prescott should be swapped in by putting US 12 on 94 between Hudson and Baldwin. F is still faster than WIS 35 even with 2/3 of that latter route being freeway/expressway.

[FightingIrish]

That is goofy! I dislike the fact that STH-24 ends at the Milwaukee/Waukesha County line. I know it was truncated there in the late 1980's when 24 between that point and STH-20 in East Troy became CTH-L, but I think 24's western end should have been at another highway, such as the nearby US 45/STH-100 junction.

There are some state routes that hold on to their designations in certain counties just so the counties don't lose the state miles. This is why WIS 74 stuck around in various, strange configurations until it was replaced by the Waukesha west bypass.

I'm guessing WIS 24 in Milwaukee exists mostly as a placeholder, though it is an important diagonal street on the south side. If a new state highway is designated in the county, those miles could possibly be taken away from WIS 24 (as occurred with the route in Waukesha County). Another turnback candidate in Milwaukee County would be much of the WIS 57 (which makes little sense).

Suggesting what would replace them as state routes would veer into fictional territory, but let's just say I like the idea of turning Good Hope Road over to the state. It's not a bad bypass on the north side, and not as crazy as Brown Deer Rd.

[invincor]

I've stated CTH-F in St. Croix County between Hudson and Prescott should be swapped in by putting US 12 on 94 between Hudson and Baldwin. F is still faster than WIS 35 even with 2/3 of that latter route being freeway/expressway.

About 20 years ago, I asked someone at WisDOT about possibly upgrading F to a state highway by routing WIS 35 onto it so that it never goes to River Falls at all, and then giving the expressway from Hudson to River Falls a number something like WIS 594. 
I was told that mightn't be a bad idea in theory, and apparently the counties have asked about making F into a state highway, but before the state can entertain that idea, a high number of the private driveways (something like 60% or more) that currently have access to F would have to be closed off to meet state highway-level requirements.  No one seems to think that's a good idea, or at least they didn't then.

[dvferyance]

Speaking of highway promotions, what County Trunk Highways in Wisconsin might be worthy of a promotion to a STH, or a swap with an existing STH?  I would consider County Trunk M in Dane County from Oregon to Verona through Westport.  It certainly has the volume and would be analogous to STH 100 around Milwaukee.  I've seen discussions here of swapping County Trunk A in Dodge County with STH 26 south of Waupun.  Others:

County Trunk M in Vilas County south of Boulder Jct. 
County Trunk PB and STH 69 in Dane County 
County Trunk GG and STH 77 in Ashland County
County Trunk N and STH 59 in Rock County (mostly)–granted, a STH connecting Milton and Edgerton makes sense.

Hwy W in Manitowoc County between 151 and 10 would work as an extension of hwy 67 was once part of hwy 32. They turned back hwy 149 nearby not that long ago so I don't see why anything else would.